Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Hahaha yes I was, it was in reference to when I called the northampton court and found out that the claimant was still listed as equidebt. The woman said because the company no longer exists to perhaps seek legal advise with a view to getting it set aside...simply because the claimant no longer exists and for that reason only. Of course I don't know this has ever been done or even if it could be. That's why I posted on here. I can see the logic in it, afterall if the company no longer exist they can't enforce it. But then I don't know how long lowell have to transfer it in to their name IF they have the paperwork and if they do why they haven't already done it.

As others have said, it's best to let this old dog sleep.

With regard to crap1, I found a letter to say debt was assigned to lowell, does this mean it is assigned or they bought it?

Although there can be various forms of assignment, in this case, it's the same thing, Lowell are debt purchasers who would have bought it. You may want to look at this thread for reference regarding assignment: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ebt+assignment

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Are we talking about the judgment obtained in 2002?

Hahaha yes I was, it was in reference to when I called the northampton court and found out that the claimant was still listed as equidebt. The woman said because the company no longer exists to perhaps seek legal advise with a view to getting it set aside...simply because the claimant no longer exists and for that reason only. Of course I don't know this has ever been done or even if it could be. That's why I posted on here. I can see the logic in it, afterall if the company no longer exist they can't enforce it. But then I don't know how long lowell have to transfer it in to their name IF they have the paperwork and if they do why they haven't already done it.


With regard to crap1, I found a letter to say debt was assigned to lowell, does this mean it is assigned or they bought it?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

I still believe that it would be far wiser not to meddle.

Yes, you might still be able to apply to have the judgement set aside, but you'd have to pay a fee to the court and you'd still need a viable defence if the claimant (or any assignee, such as Lowlifes) were to contest it.

Are we talking about the judgment obtained in 2002?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

That would be the card you thought you'd opened in 2004 and defaulted on in 2006?

The current year is 2013, isn't it?

As most companies only store customers' data for six years, what do you suppose they'll still have concerning you?

I've said this before, I only ever got data for the past 6 years, however, companies are supposed to keep data for 12 years and some have obtained data going back 10 years or so. Besides, there was mention of payments made as late as 2009. At the end of the day, it's a matter of deciding whether it's worth spending £10 to find out or not.

I have only received a letter to my aunts house from bc solicitors asking me to confirm I live there, which I don't, this was sent end of august, and I received a letter to my aunts house again from lowlife about a crap1 account.

Having gone through the old equifax and experian report dated 04, I have noticed that there is no account details on there for the crap 1 card, only a search done in 04. Which leads me to believe this was when I must have taken the card out. With that in mind, if the payments from my bank account where made in 08 & 09 the debt would not be SB. this would be the same for the 02 account if the payments where for that too. (Remembering there where 2 separate amounts)

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Because I suffer anxiety I can never let anything go.

Gosh, whoever would have guessed? :grin:

Seriously, you should go to your local quack and get some chill pills.

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Sorry cc I just noticed the comment you made about getting ccj set aside for lack of paperwork, I was thinking on the lines that the claimant no longer exist, or still a waste of time?

I still believe that it would be far wiser not to meddle.

Yes, you might still be able to apply to have the judgement set aside, but you'd have to pay a fee to the court and you'd still need a viable defence if the claimant (or any assignee, such as Lowlifes) were to contest it.

Admittedly, you'd almost certainly receive bugger all if you were to submit a section 78 request (link) to the assigned creditor, but the court may take the view that the request would have been satisfied if it had been made in a more timely manner rather than eleven years later!

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

One would almost certainly be minded to concur.


Yes, that's about it.


They cannot merely "file for a County Court judgement", as they would need to issue a claim in the usual way and with an appropriately pleaded case. As it is likely - or almost certain - that they have little or no information regarding the debt, this might be difficult for them but such niceties have not been known to deter them in the past. Lack of relevant information or appropriate documents has, however, meant that they've lost such cases.
Let me put it this way: if Lowlifes were to try anything, I expect they'd soon be financing a pair or two of really posh shoes for Celestine.


Equidebt, Shirley?


There is little or nothing that Lowlifes can do, other than to huff, puff and threaten to blow your house down.

Look at section 24 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980 and you'll see why it should be difficult (if not wholly impossible) for any previous CCJ to be enforced after six years, whilst making a new claim based on the original cause of action should be barred by section 5 (link).

Ahh thanks cc, I understand now. Sometimes one just needs a little reassurance....though I seem to have needed a few days worth!! Lol

And yes I did mean equidebt...I've been at this for days now, it's a wonder I'm not sitting rocking in a corner rocking and knocking my head of wall!!

My poor family have really taken a back seat with all this. Because I suffer anxiety I can never let anything go. But I'm taking everyone's advice and should anything arise I know where to come.

Thank, all of you. I'll still be around but hopefully to help advise with work and family issues, because frankly I know sod all about this stuff!!! Hahaha

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

As most companies only store customers' data for six years, what do you suppose they'll still have concerning you?

I'm guessing nothing,

One would almost certainly be minded to concur.

so do we suggest that at present I go back to the original plan of ignoring letters but date and file them (as they are all going to aunts)

Yes, that's about it.

if they where to then send anything relating to file for a ccj I tackle it then??

They cannot merely "file for a County Court judgement", as they would need to issue a claim in the usual way and with an appropriately pleaded case. As it is likely - or almost certain - that they have little or no information regarding the debt, this might be difficult for them but such niceties have not been known to deter them in the past. Lack of relevant information or appropriate documents has, however, meant that they've lost such cases.
Let me put it this way: if Lowlifes were to try anything, I expect they'd soon be financing a pair or two of really posh shoes for Celestine.

Gosh, I was really excited when court told me ccj was in experian name...

Equidebt, Shirley?

I was ready to tackle all this head on think there would be little they could do and I'm in same place!

There is little or nothing that Lowlifes can do, other than to huff, puff and threaten to blow your house down.

Look at section 24 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980 and you'll see why it should be difficult (if not wholly impossible) for any previous CCJ to be enforced after six years, whilst making a new claim based on the original cause of action should be barred by section 5 (link).

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Yes, but not where I'm from....lol

Sorry cc I just noticed the comment you made about getting ccj set aside for lack of paperwork, I was thinking on the lines that the claimant no longer exist, or still a waste of time?

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Oh and by the way bow is an area, bow court she was talking about.

Or, in other words, that part of London where true cockneys reside - within hearing distance of Bow bells.

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

That would be the card you thought you'd opened in 2004 and defaulted on in 2006?

The current year is 2013, isn't it?

As most companies only store customers' data for six years, what do you suppose they'll still have concerning you?

I'm guessing nothing, so do we suggest that at present I go back to the original plan of ignoring letters but date and file them (as they are all going to aunts) if they where to then send anything relating to file for a ccj I tackle it then??

Gosh, I was really excited when court told me ccj was in experian name...I was ready to tackle all this head on think there would be little they could do and I'm in same place!

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

No I have never, is that something I should do whilst I apply for sar from crap1?

That would be the card you thought you'd opened in 2004 and defaulted on in 2006?

The current year is 2013, isn't it?

As most companies only store customers' data for six years, what do you suppose they'll still have concerning you?

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!


If you were confronted with a pack of rabid, snarling dogs, would you:

1. leap up and down, waving your knickers in the air to attract their attention, or
2. creep away as quietly as possible, in the hope that they'll not follow you?

Lol...ok point taken! Cloggy your hilarious!

Oh and by the way bow is an area, bow court she was talking about.

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!


If you were confronted with a pack of rabid, snarling dogs, would you:

1. leap up and down, waving your knickers in the air to attract their attention, or
2. creep away as quietly as possible, in the hope that they'll not follow you?

[strong123]

Re: Contacted by lowell - following a letter from BC solicitors

No, a SAR is just for information and doesn't put an account on hold, but it can help you get the data you need to establish your position. They can't just file a CCJ, :nono: they'll have to follow a process, starting with a claim you can defend.

Remind me again, have you sent a CCA request to Lowell for this account?

*IF* they write to you, do post up here before doing anything. :typing: :thumb:

No I have never, is that something I should do whilst I apply for sar from crap1?

I will of course post before sending anything with regard to ccj, author I suspect that letter is coming shortly....after responding with regard to crap1